Ontario Land Tribunal

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the applicant against the municipality's failure to adopt an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment for a 21-storey apartment building.

The Tribunal granted participant status to three individuals on consent, scheduled a five-day video hearing, and issued a Procedural Order to govern the proceedings.

The applicants brought a motion to dismiss the appellants' appeals of a development permit approval for the expansion of an existing retreat use on the subject property.

The applicants argued that the appeals lacked genuine planning issues, constituted an abuse of process by re-litigating previously resolved issues, and had no reasonable prospect of success.

The Hearing Officer denied the motion, finding that the appeals raised legitimate planning questions regarding whether the proposed expansion complied with the Niagara Escarpment Plan.

The Hearing Officer concluded that the appeals disclosed a planning justification, were not frivolous or vexatious, and did not constitute an abuse of process, as the issue of expanding the existing use had not been previously adjudicated.

The Tribunal considered a proposed partial settlement regarding appeals of the new Town of Collingwood Official Plan.

The settlement involved modifications to general policies to ensure consistency with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2024, particularly concerning natural heritage and infrastructure.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal approved the modifications, finding them consistent with provincial policy and good land use planning, without prejudice to remaining site-specific appeals.

The appellant brought a motion for costs following a successful appeal.

However, the respondent subsequently filed a Request for Review, which was granted by the Chair, resulting in the original decision being rescinded and a re-hearing ordered.

The Tribunal found the motion for costs to be premature and directed that it be considered at the conclusion of the re-hearing by a different Member.

The Town of LaSalle brought a motion for directions to declare unappealed portions of Official Plan Amendment No. 2 (Howard Bouffard Secondary Plan) in force and effect.

The appellants had agreed to scope their appeals on a site-specific or area-specific basis.

Sorge Enterprises Inc., a non-appellant party sheltering under the appellants' issues, opposed the motion, arguing that the appeals should not be scoped and the broader Environmental Protection Designation should remain under appeal for all lands.

The Tribunal granted the Town's motion, finding that a non-appellant sheltering party has no right to craft issues or dictate the scope of appeals, which is the prerogative of the actual appellants.

The unappealed portions of the OPA were declared in force and effect.

The applicant appealed the Township's denial of a minor variance to reduce the front yard setback and increase the permitted floor area for an existing guest cabin on a shoreline property.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement that involved partially demolishing the cabin to comply with the maximum floor area and amending the requested front yard setback to 13.0 metres.

Relying on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the amended variance met the four-part test under the Planning Act and authorized the variance.

The Appellant appealed the Township's passage of an Interim Control By-law (ICBL) that prohibits human habitation uses on properties zoned institutional.

At the first Case Management Conference, the Tribunal directed the parties to submit a draft Procedural Order and scheduled a five-day video hearing for July 2026.

The Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding an appeal of the City's failure to make a decision on an Official Plan Amendment application to expand the settlement area boundary.

The Tribunal granted party status to an adjacent landowner who raised concerns about density and environmental impacts.

The new party also filed a Notice of Constitutional Question regarding the Crown's duty to consult Indigenous groups, which the Tribunal scheduled to be heard as a motion for directions.

The Tribunal declined the applicant's request to schedule a hearing, finding it premature, and instead scheduled a second Case Management Conference.

The applicant appealed the City's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application to permit seven townhouse dwellings.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement.

Based on uncontroverted expert land use planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised proposal consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement 2024 and in conformity with the applicable official plans.

The appeal was allowed in part to amend the zoning by-law in accordance with the settlement.

The appellant appealed the municipality's failure to make a decision on a site plan control application for a commercial plaza.

At the first case management conference, the Ontario Land Tribunal granted party status to the county on consent.

The Tribunal approved the draft procedural order and scheduled a second case management conference and a three-day video hearing.

The applicant appealed the Township's refusal of a minor variance application seeking retroactive approval for an oversized viewing deck and storage shed built within the required shoreline setbacks of Long Lake.

The applicant argued the oversized deck was necessary for a family member's accessibility needs.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the variances failed the four-part test under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The Tribunal preferred the Township's expert evidence that the structures posed ecological risks, circumvented proactive buffer policies, and represented overdevelopment of the shoreline inconsistent with the Official Plan and Zoning By-law.

The applicant appealed the City of Pickering's failure to make a decision on applications for an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a mixed-use development.

The parties reached a settlement for a nine-storey apartment building with 252 units.

The Tribunal accepted uncontroverted expert planning and transportation evidence that the settlement proposal is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conforms to the applicable Official Plans, and represents good planning.

The appeals were allowed in part to implement the settlement.

The Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference (CMC) regarding appeals by the applicant for the municipality's failure to make a decision on official plan and zoning by-law amendment applications within statutory timelines.

The Tribunal deferred rulings on participant status requests to clarify potential duplication.

A second CMC was scheduled for May 11, 2026, to finalize status requests and review the draft Procedural Order and Issues List.

The appellant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's denial of minor variances required to construct a two-storey detached dwelling.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement on a revised application that eliminated one variance and modified others.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found that the revised variances met the four tests under the Planning Act, representing good planning and appropriate infill development.

The appeal was allowed in part and the revised variances were authorized subject to conditions.

The applicant appealed the City of Brantford's failure to make a decision on applications for an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Draft Plan of Subdivision to permit a residential development with a townhouse block.

Following a settlement between the parties on the Official Plan Amendment, the parties reached a settlement on the remaining appeals.

Based on the uncontradicted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the proposed development and draft plan conditions consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and in conformity with the City's Official Plan.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals and approved the Zoning By-law Amendment and Draft Plan of Subdivision.

The appellant municipality appealed the Committee of Adjustment's conditional approval of consent and minor variance applications intended to permit the severance of a parcel of land and the construction of a single-detached dwelling.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement on revised applications and conditions of approval.

Based on the uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found that the revised applications were consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conformed to the applicable Official Plans, and met the statutory criteria under the Planning Act.

The appeals were allowed in part to authorize the provisional consent and minor variances subject to the agreed-upon conditions.

The Tribunal convened a first Case Management Conference regarding an appeal of the municipality's refusal of a Zoning By-law Amendment application to permit a commercial garage.

The municipality appeared through an employee and advised it would be retaining counsel.

On consent of the parties, the Tribunal adjourned the CMC to allow the municipality to retain counsel and scheduled a second CMC for June 11, 2026.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the applicant against the City of North Bay's adoption of Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments, as well as the refusal of consent and minor variance applications for a property on Trout Lake.

The Tribunal ordered that the appeals be heard together and scoped the policy appeals to be site-specific to the subject property.

Several area residents were granted participant status, and a second Case Management Conference was scheduled to allow the parties to finalize a procedural order and issues list.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on applications for an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to facilitate a 40-storey residential building.

Following a settlement hearing, the Tribunal accepted uncontradicted planning evidence that the proposed amendments conform to applicable provincial and municipal policies.

The appeals were allowed in part, with the amendments approved in principle and the final order withheld pending the fulfillment of several conditions, including servicing, transportation, and tenant relocation requirements.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a procedural order to govern the hearing of an appeal concerning three consent applications for residential lot severances in the Town of Essex.

The order sets out the organization of the hearing, requirements before the hearing, the issues list, and the order of evidence for the three-day video hearing scheduled to commence on June 3, 2026.